Dismissed

Union of India and Ors. v. Vicky Chalotra

J&K HC18 Nov 2025WP(C)/1324/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Union of India challenged an AFT order granting a discharged ex-serviceman disability element for Primary Hypertension, Simple Obesity and Dimorphic Anaemia. The High Court upheld aggravation of hypertension and anaemia by military service per GMO 2008 para 43 and dismissed the writ petition, upholding the AFT's award.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; AFT order dated 13.03.2023 granting disability element at 35% rounded off to 50% for life upheld.

Union of India and Ors. Vs Vicky Chalotra — Pension and Retirement Benefits | J&K HC (2025)

¶1

Sr. No. 11

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU

¶3

Case: WP(C) No. 1324/2025

¶4

1.Union of India through its Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Defence, South Block, New Delhi

¶5

2.Additional Director General Personnel Services, Adjutant General's Branch, Integrated HQ of Ministry of Defence (army)' DHQ PO, New Delhi

¶6

3. Principal Controller of Defence Accounts (Pensions) Draupadi Ghat, Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh

¶7

4. OIC Records, Aviation Records, PIN-9OO482, C/o 56 APO.

¶8

….Petitioner/Appellant(s)

¶9

Through:- Mr. Vishal Sharma, DSGI with Mr. Eishaan Dadhichi, CGSC

¶10

V/s

¶11

No.14426430L Ex Naik Vicky Chalotra, S/o Shri Shiv Lal, R/o Village: Marhol, Post Office: Allaha, Tehsil: Bishnah, Di.strict: Jammu.

¶12

…..Respondent(s)

¶13

Through:- Mr. S. K. Saini, Advocate Mr. B. S. Sarmal, Advocate Mr. Amit Singh, Advocate

¶14

CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SINDHU SHARMA, JUDGE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAHZAD AZEEM, JUDGE ORDER

¶15

18.11.2025

¶16

This writ petition has been filed by the Union of India assailing the order dated 13.03.2023 passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal, Srinagar Bench at Jammu (hereinafter “the AFT” ). By the impugned order, the AFT directed the petitioners to grant disability element to the respondent at 35% for life ,

¶17

Page 2 of 5

¶18

rounded off to 50% for life, from the date following his discharge.

¶19

The respondent, Vicky Chalotra , was enrolled in the Indian Army on 14.10.1998 and was discharged on 31.10.2020 in Low Medical Category on fulfilling the terms of his enrolment under Rule 13(3), Item III(i) of the Army Rules, 1954. At the time of discharge, the Release Medical Board (RMB) convened at 166 Military Hospital on 28.10.2020 assessed the following disabilities:

¶20

a. (i) Primary Hypertension (I-10.0) – 30%

¶21

b. (ii) Simple Obesity (E-66.0) – 5% c. (iii) Dimorphic Anaemia (D-55.9) – 5%

¶22

¶23

The composite assessment was 36% for life, and all

¶24

disabilities were opined as Neither Attributable to Nor Aggravated (NANA) by military service.

¶25

The respondent’s claim for disability pension was rejected on 03.03.2021 . His First Appeal was rejected on 10.02.2022, which was communicated to him on 16.03.2022 .

¶26

Feeling aggrieved, the respondent approached the AFT seeking disability pension on the ground that he was physically and medically fit at the time of enrolment and that all the disabilities were detected during military service.

¶27

The petitioners contended before the AFT that since the RMB categorized the composite disability as NANA, the respondent was not entitled to any disability element under Regulations 81, 179 of the Pension Regulations for the Army,

¶28

Page 3 of 5

¶29

1961 (Part I) and Regulation 53(a) of the Pension Regulations for the Army, 2008 (Part I) . 7. The AFT, however, noted that the first and third disabilities, Primary Hypertension and Dimorphic Anaemia were detected after nearly 19 to 20 years of military service (i.e., in December 2014 and September 2019 respectively). Relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dharamvir Singh v. Union of India , (2013) 7 SCC 316, the Tribunal held that these disabilities should be treated as aggravated by military service. As regards Simple Obesity, the AFT held it to be a lifestyle disease and upheld its categorization as NANA.

¶30

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9. Paragraph 43 of Chapter VI of the Guide to Medical Officers (GMO), 2008 deals with Hypertension and clearly provides that although attributability is generally not appropriate for primary hypertension, aggravation may be considered where the disease arises or worsens during service, particularly in field areas, high altitude areas, counterinsurgency operational zones, or prolonged afloat service.

¶31

The issue regarding entitlement to disability pension in cases involving Hypertension and Obesity has already been considered by a Division Bench of this Court in a batch of petitions, the lead matter being WP(C) 3173/2023, Union of

¶32

Page 4 of 5

¶33

India & Ors. v. Nirman Singh Jamwal , decided on 03.11.2025, and in WP(C) 1094/2024, wherein while examining the legal questions, the Division Bench observed as under:-

¶34

“………The disability 'Primary Hypertension' is dealt with in para 43 of the GMO, 2008,which for facility of reference is reproduced hereunder:

¶35

"43. Hypertension. 'The first consideration should be to determine whether the hypertension is primary or secondary. If secondary, entitlement considerations should be directed to the underlying disease process (e.g Nephritis), and it is unnecessary to notify hypertension separately.

¶36

As in the case of atherosclerosis, entitlement of attributability is never appropriate, but where disablement for essential hypertension appears to have arisen or become worse in service, thc question whether service compulsions have caused aggravation must be considered. However, in certain cases the disease has been reported after long and frequent spells of service infield/HAA/active operational area. Such cases can be explained by variable response exhibited by different individuals to stressful situations. Primary hypertension will be considered aggravated if it occurs while serving in Field areas, IIAA, CIOPS areas or prolonged afloat service.”

¶37

From a reading of para 43 of GMO, 2008, it becomes abundantly clear that where disablement on account of hypertension appears to have arisen or become worse in service, the question whether service compulsion have caused aggravation must be considered.

¶38

The GMO, 2008, mandates that the medical authorities must clearly opine as to whether the disability which the individual has been found inflicted with at the time of his release, which apparently have arisen during service became worse in service or not. The medical authority must answer the question whether the service compulsions have caused aggravation or not. The medical authorities are also required to consider the entire service career of the individual to find out as to whether any long and frequent spells of service infield/HAA/ACTlVE operational area have created stressful situation, thus, aggravating the primary hypertension.

¶39

In view of the aforesaid prescription, it is abundantly clear that the factors like stress and strain of the military service,

¶40

Page 5 of 5

¶41

isolation, separation from family leaving the individual tense and anxious as quite often separation entails running of separate establishment, financial crisis, disturbance of child education and lack of security for the disease noted above.

¶42

In the face of overwhelming medical opinion with regard to these diseases and guidelines laid down in GMO, 2008, it is a forgone conclusion that the disability of Primary Hypertension, which the respondent was found suffering at the time of his discharge from army service is aggravated by military service.”

¶43

In the present case, the respondent was found medically fit at the time of enrolment on 24.10.1998. His disabilities of Primary Hypertension and Dimorphic Anaemia were detected only after 19–20 years of service, during his active tenure in the Army. Following the settled position of law and the principles laid down in the above-mentioned judgments, these disabilities are liable to be treated as aggravated by service. As regards Simple Obesity, the RMB has rightly treated it as NANA, being a lifestyle-related condition.

¶44

In view of the above and in the facts and circumstances of the case, we find no merit in the present writ petition. The order dated 13.03.2023 passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal, Srinagar Bench at Jammu is upheld.

¶45

The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

¶46

(Shahzad Azeem) (Sindhu Sharma) Judge Judge

¶47

Jammu: 18.11.2025 Bir*

Union of India and Ors. v. Vicky Chalotra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union of India and Ors. v. Vicky Chalotra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State Th.P/S.Ramban Vs Bashir Ahmed

Ut of J and K Th Secy to Govt PWD Department J and K Government Civil Secretariat Jammu Srinagar Vs Parvez Ahmed

Poonam Devi Vs Ut of J and K through Commissioner Secretary to Govt Education Deptt and Others

Union of India and Ors. Vs Pritam Chand

Anjali Sharma Vs High Court of J and K Ladakh through Its Registrar General and Others

Vijay Kumar Vs Union of India Th. Ministry of Defence, New Delhi and Others